TO: MIAMI-DADE foreman of the Grand Jury and Grand Jury Members:

GRAND JURY INVESTIGATE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OF DISABILITY ACCESS LAWS IN MIAMI-DADE.

The issue, which has taken a major turn for the worse, is Code Enforcement of the Florida Building Code, where all the access laws on parking and building construction, including counters.

I visited the Florida Building Code Compliance Office, at 140 West Flagler Street as I had a list of buildings, in Doral, Cutler Bay, Pinecrest, Palmetto Bay and the Miami-Dade County Public Works Department which were grossly out of compliance with the access laws and County ordinances. These Code Enforcement Officers have the power to visit the municipals and seek compliance. To my shock, they told me that the Manager and the Mayor were terminating them.

These code enforcement officers are the last line of defense in our efforts to get our access code violations solved.

My first intervention was a visit to Mr. Sundry, of the Budget Office. I explained the folly of these code enforcement officers being terminated.

A second intervention was explaining this folly to County Manager Burgess as a member of the West Kendall Business Association, as he was the speaker and took two questions from the audience. He assured by me and the large audience that he would look into the matter.

My third intervention was to e-mail all commissioners on the folly of disbanding this Code Enforcement Section.

My fourth intervention was to talk to a limited few Commissioners the last day of the Budget Hearings, which included speaking at the Budget Hearings about this bad government folly. Not a single commissioner offered and amendment to override the termination of this Code Enforcement Office.

The result is now the Miami-Dade Building Department is charged with overseeing all the Accessibility Complaints of the 34 municipalities. This inept Miami-Dade Building Department creates the greatest volume of these violations. For instance, the Building Department Director's counter is 42 inches high, when the Florida Building Code specifically requires a 36-inch x 36-inch counter for people with disabilities. When a Mr. Richard of the above mentioned Compliance Section would not act, the complaint was sent to the Federal Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, where hundreds and hundreds of such complaints are pending.

Mr. Richard has left the Code Compliance Section and the Accessibility position was left unfilled.

What the Mayor, Manager and Commission have done is short-circuited the enforcement of the accessibility laws of Miami-Dade County and the Florida Building Code in all the municipalities, including the Miami-Dade Building Department.

Accessibility Code Compliance has always been a touchy issue as these Code Enforcement Officers are often at odds with the most powerful developers at one time or another. These powerful people go to the County Administration and complain about the Code Enforcement Officers who are just doing their job.

When Carlos Bonzon was Building Director he instituted Accessibility Plans Examiners. The Grand Jury needs to investigate what happened to these positions. Mr. Fraga was part of this team.

Simple requirements such as locating the disabled parking as close to the entrance as possible are violated daily by the Miami-Dade County Building Department. For some inept reason the Department of Public Works issues permits for commercial parking lots resealing and striping, In 1997 the Florida Building Code was amended to create a 5 foot access aisle for vans at disabled parking spaces.

I personally reported a business at 11111 SW 186 Street for resealing. And not bringing this lone disabled parking space up to code. Years have passed with the complaint pending. The parking lot has again been resealed and stills no upgrade to include the access aisle.

It is a fact, that if the County did their job appropriately, all the Commercial parking lots would have state of the art parking for people with disabilities due to the requirement of a permit for resealing and striping. All of these parking lots would have been upgraded to the 1997 State law on parking for the disabled requirements.

When we actually do get some compliance it is often wrong. For instance, the Public Works Department just seems to require a single blue line stripe in new permits, rather than following the state law on prominently using blue paint. When I make complaints about the other missing blue paint, the Team Metro staff fails to bring these disabled parking spaces up to the requirements of the law.

Another location at 9308 S. Dixie saw the disabled parking installed. With the access aisle on the wrong side. A quadriplegic driver would have to use S. Dixie Hwy to try to back into this space to use the access aisle. A disabled parking sign is not installed. This business was a floral business and is now a smoking business, with the most illegal and outrageous counter, another Florida Building Code violation.

Commercial counters seem to be a real problem with the Miami-Dade Building Department, when reported, they see no action. Near my place of business, there are three new businesses, all with counters devoid of a 36" x 36" counter for short people and people in wheelchairs. This is Miami-Dade County Business as usual. Typically a zoning inspector visits the premises and passes these locations with the counter being illegal.

A few years ago, I attempted to resolve the problem of our horrible code enforcement problem. I met with Mr. Fargo, who was the accessibility inspector for the Code Compliance Office, who retired and the County did not re-fill his position, Gisel Rodriguez, Team Metro, and Peter Fernandez.

I was advocating an Accessibility Section Discipline within the Miami-Dade Building Department complete with a Chief of Accessibility, Accessibility Plans Examiners and well trained Accessibility Inspectors who could use a check list before letting new buildings open to the general public. During the meeting I stated that Charles Danger, Director of Building Department was the biggest obstacle in getting this plan into action. Peter Hernandez assured the participants and me. An ambiguous letter then followed this from the County Manager ending this effort, and the next subsequent meeting never happened.

Too many twists and turns have occurred in the Code Enforcement of our access laws enforcement. Team Metro should never have been made part of enforcement of our parking laws or any part of building construction.

Worst, there is zero effort to go after the contractors who illegally reseal and stripe commercial parking lots, build illegal counters and entire build outs without Access features or bungled access features. The county way is dumping the expense on the property owners, and not pursuing the contractors who do the illegal work. Honest roofers, plumbers, air conditioning companies with license and insurance simply cannot compete with the licensed or unlicensed contractors who do the work illegally and without permit and inspections. Too often these fine tradesmen report no permit work performed and by who and there is no adverse action like citations, loss of business license and stiff fines. And after many such reports with no enforcement they give up, knowing the system is corrupt.

A location that I attempted to rent got rented to another person. It is at 10527 SW 1896 Street. I witnessed a build out of offices with no permit. I made a 311 complaint. It was assigned a complaint number. Years later, I was told by 311 that a Team Metro representative had visited the location and found no evidence of the complaint. The owners of this address are notorious in South Dade for evading all the needed resealing permits and install the most horrific disabled parking scenarios. Complaints to the County see no positive action at these warehouse locations. Either this Team Metro inspector was inept or took a financial incentive to blow this report off. This is one of the few complaints I have made not using my name.

Goal:

Recommend that the Miami-Dade Building Department create the Accessibility Section within the Department, and recommend that all 34 Building Departments within Miami-Dade County do the same. There must be a "Chief" of accessibility no matter how large or small the department.

And they use a checklist for checking off the new building construction, before opening the building. (Checklist attached)

Goal:

It is my hope and belief that the Grand Jury revisits a Grand Jury report on this topic and does an investigation on the real reasons the Building Code Compliance Office was abruptly terminated. This Office was solvent, according to them and the break up of this Code Enforcement Team was un-excusable and just very bad code enforcement.

Sub Goal:

While I am expertise in the Accessibility Inspector duties, the Grand Jury needs to look into how this termination affects Building, Mechanical, Energy, Plumbing, Fire and the other disciplines this Code Enforcement Team was responsible. They also were involved with continuing education of local building officials.

Goal:

Recommend the creation of an Accessibility Section within the building Department. This means getting Team Metro or Neighborhood Compliance, PUBLIC WORKS, and Planning and Zoning completely out of the access laws permitting and enforcement of existing Commercial Parking Lots. All of these "code enforcement officers" are inept.

Goal:

Recommend the above be enacted by an ordinance, complete with a citizen oversight board, and that the ordinance will prohibit local government from issuing new business licenses to existing properties, unless they meet the accessibility readily achievable standards for parking, entrance, interior aisles, counters and restrooms as well as signage for the blind. The current practice is to ignore these requirements when issuing a new business license.

Goal:

Recommend strong citations and fines, including license revoking on contractors doing work without permit. Have the County use all police powers to track down contractors who reseal and stripe without permits, build illegal counters and other build outs with full knowledge that their work actions are illegal without permit.

We just need one Accessibility Code Enforcement Section in Un-incoportated Dade County and our Office of Florida Building Code Inspectors back so that the municipalities, including the Miami-Dade Building Department are fully covered.

Under the new strong mayor law, the mayor is now responsible for enforcement of the Florida Building Code as a charter county. Ironically, he abolished his last line of enforcement in the County. We will soon have a new mayor, and our Access Laws hinge strongly upon this new mayor. Failing this county enforcement the State Attorney is responsible for enforcing all the laws of Florida, which include the Florida Building Code.

Suggested Witnesses:

Rene Fraga, retired

Peter Hernandez, retired;

Gisel Rodriguez;

Denny Wood

Respectfully Submitted,

Denny R. Wood, MSW

President

Florida Paraplegic Association, Inc.

Attached: document supporting the Code Compliance Office:

Proposed Merger of the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office into the Miami-Dade Building Department

On May 15, 1990, the Dade County Grand Jury bringing light to issues addressing the way the County enforced and regulated those employed to enforce the codes meant to protect the citizens of this county filed a final report. This report made specific recommendations addressing the Board of Rules and Appeals and its supporting staff. The Grand Jury report was studied and later endorsed by both the Board of Rules and Appeals and the Audit and Management Office of Dade County. On July 9, 1991, the Grand Jury recommendations proposed as an ordinance change amending Chapter 8 of the Metro-Dade Code and Chapter 2 of the South Florida Building Code 0891-73. Even though the South Florida Building Code no longer exists, the Florida Building Code, however, is still regulated and Chapter 8 of the now Miami-Dade Code are at the same time an important and relevant tool available to us in the protection of the citizens of Miami- Dade County. These changes were later adopted by the Mayor and members of the Board of County Commissioners as they saw as needed to protect these very same citizens. The Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office is tasked as the entity responsible for carrying out the administrative and regulatory functions given to the Board of Rules and Appeals by the adoption of the Grand Jury recommendations adopted in Chapter 8 of the Miami-Dade Code and the regulation of the Florida Building Code.

The budget proposal presented by the Mayor and County Manager for the upcoming fiscal year goes contrary to these recommendations by proposing that the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office be merged with the Miami-Dade Building Department. The Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office is the support staff to the Board of Rules and Appeals. Moreover, as stated in the Grand Jury recommendations, and later adopted by the board of commissioners, should maintain its autonomy from any building department in order to remain as an independent third party status in its carrying out the administrative and regulatory functions given to the Board of Rules and Appeals concerning Chapter 8 and other matters set forth by this Board.

The Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office cannot perform its function and maintain its autonomy and the appearance there of, being part of one single building department, setting, enforcing, and regulating all other building departments while under the control of one building official. This is why the Miami-Dade Code Compliance Office must stay as a separate entity allowing it to function as originally intended. These are some issues that would constitute the joining of these two departments as a solution not well thought out or in other ways ill conceived:

• This proposal would be a direct conflict of interest between the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office and the Miami-Dade Building Department. By placing one under the control of the other, the likely hood of the Building Code Compliance Office implementing the Board of Rules and Appeals jurisdiction over the Miami-Dade Building Department would be less than that of a Code Compliance Office autonomous from the Miami-Dade Building Department. Even if this were not the case, this might be the perception of other building officials throughout the rest of the county and among others in the industry.
• Some of the funding as set up by the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendations of the Dade County Grand Jury is collected from a fee attached to all permits issued through all municipalities. Putting the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office under the control of the Miami-Dade Building Department would cause a direct conflict of interest by having the funds that come from other building departments going into the resource of another building department.
• This proposal would give control over the Board of Rules and Appeals, and its supporting staff to one building department over all others within incorporated Miami-Dade County.
• The Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office has been able to reduce its expenditures and maintain a budget that allowed it to maintain its self-proprietary status without reducing the quality of services required by the citizens of Miami-Dade County.

As you can see, the merger of these two departments does not stand up to what would be considered a sound way of serving the citizens of Miami-Dade County. Three units of the building department seem to be in need of what could be construed as a financial bailout. Utilizing the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office to achieve this goal smacks in the face of sound financial and organizational objectives. As stated earlier, the code compliance office is at this point and into fiscal year 2012 in a financial standing to maintain its operations and service to the public. The Miami-Dade Building Department does not have the means to sustain service to the public. Due to a shrinking area of service needed in the unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County, and reduced construction activity, the revenue source to this department is not enough to sustain it. The Proposed Budget in fact appropriates a $2 million loan to the Building Department, which is required to be repaid in three years. This may be accomplished with the $1.9 million carry-over absorbed from the Building Code Compliance Office as a result of the merger proposed by the Mayor and County Manager. Also, note that in the proposed budget there is no mention of the cost cutting measures implemented by the Building Code Compliance Office; only those if the Building Department. Where are the $2.363 million in savings? Even with the proposed elimination of positions in the Code Compliance Department, there will be no realized savings to apply to other services because the funding for those expenditures and employees does not come from the general fund.

It would make more sense to consider merging the operations of the building department with other agencies that perform the same functions as the units of this department. These are the actions that might be considered to serve the residents of the unincorporated areas in a more efficient way:

•  
  • Merge the plan review and inspection processes of the building department into the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has already provided this service to the residents of Miami-Dade County and is under the direction of a director who is qualified to oversee all of these operations. This would result in substantial savings in costs to the residents of Miami-Dade County by eliminating redundant staff and overhead costs.
  • Merge the neighborhood compliance operations into either the Public Works Department or the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance Office. Both departments are already geared to regulation and enforcement of county codes. And have staff in place to oversee these operations. This again would result in savings to the residents of the county by reducing the costs in staff and overhead.

As pointed out, it does not make fiscal sense to take the department of the Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance office, which is a sustainable entity and merge it into a department, which is not. Furthermore, considering the Grand Jury and County Commissions recommendations from the past, why would this action be taken when there are more viable cost saving measures as stated above that can be taken? The above-proposed mergers would maintain the recommendations of the Grand Jury and County Commission and at the same time result in substantial cost savings to the county. It would also team functions within the county with other agencies that perform the same functions.